Sunday, November 20, 2016

How did the culture of growth evolve?

There can be little doubt that a change in attitude toward nature
and the ability to harness it to human needs, that occurred among an educated
elite in Europe in the period 1500 to 1700, paved the way for the industrial
enlightenment in Britain, and the subsequent economic growth that has since benefited
much of the world’s population. Joel Mokyr’s recent book,A Culture of Growth: The origins of the modern economy,explains that
change of attitude in terms of cultural evolution.

Since cultural evolution involves individuals in making
choices that change their beliefs, values and preferences it might be expected
to be a gradual process. However, Mokyr uses cultural evolution to explain the
large, discontinuous change in attitudes that occurred in Europe by pointing to:
factors causing resistance to such change throughout the world; factors
specific to Europe leading to a weakening of such resistance; and specific change
agents espousing the cultural change that occurred. At the risk of
over-simplifying the author’s scholarly efforts I will attempt to outline his
thesis below.

Early modern Europe was a deeply religious age. The great
Thomist synthesis, in which Christianity was merged with Aristotelian physics
and metaphysics became a deeply entrenched dogma. The prevailing culture
discouraged potential innovators from openly challenging this dogma. Science had
previously flourished during some periods other parts of the world. It
flourished in the first centuries of Islam, but was subsequently held back by
mystical religious dogmas. It flourished in China during the Tang and Song
dynasties (618-907 and 960-1127), but stagnated during the Ming and Quing
dynasties (1368-1644 and 1644-1911) when institutions such as the imperial
service examination system served to discourage intellectual innovation.

Political fragmentation is the specific factor which led to
a weakening of resistance to intellectual innovation. In the context of the
ongoing cultural unity of Europe, political fragmentation made it possible for
intellectuals whose ideas were suppressed in one jurisdiction to continue their
work elsewhere. The ubiquity of the printing press made a mockery of
prohibitions on books by rulers of particular states. The rulers of different
states sought to enhance their prestige by competing with one another to
attract citizens with academic or other skills.

The third element of the evolutionary story is the work of
cultural entrepreneurs, particularly Francis Bacon (1561-1629) and Isaac Newton
(1643-1727). Joel Mokyr emphasises that Bacon’s contribution should be assessed
in terms of his rhetorical contribution to cultural change rather than his specific
contributions to science. Bacon challenged the traditional orthodoxy by
emphasizing the potential for the “sacred duty” to improve the material conditions
of life to be aided by knowledge gained from experimentation. He argued that
knowledge ought to bear fruit in production.

Isaac Newton promoted the view that the universe is
mechanistic and understandable and that the role of science is to establish
empirical regularities. He also argued that this knowledge should be used for
the material benefit of mankind.

The educated elite in Europe – members of the so-called
Republic of Letters – looked upon Bacon and Newton as the most influential
thinkers of their age. The Republic of Letters set up norms and incentives that
supported the market place of ideas. Participants were expected to reply to
letters, disclose findings and data truthfully and acknowledge intellectual
debts. The main payoff for successful scientific efforts was enhanced reputation.
Evidence and logic were needed to back up assertions in order to win acceptance
for new ideas. Scepticism provided the basis for advances in codified knowledge.

In Britain, the Puritans were particularly impressed by
Francis Bacon’s writings. They were deeply attracted to experimental research.
The systematic study of God’s creation was seen to be the closest a Calvinist
could get to understanding an inscrutable deity. The study of nature was seen
to have potential to instruct interpreters of the scriptures. The Puritans saw
a great deal of virtue in “good works”, which they associated with labour that
was useful and profitable in a worldly sense. What we call leisure, the
Puritans viewed as idleness. They regarded education in physics, science,
mathematics and languages as deeply virtuous.

The Puritans showed little concern for improving
institutions in ways that would benefit economic growth, but in their stress on
empirics and the practical use of knowledge they constitute “an essential link
between the early followers of Francis Bacon and the Industrial Enlightenment
of the 18th century” (which Joel Mokyr wrote about in The Enlightened Economy). During the later Enlightenment period,
science was, of course, able to “shed religion and advance on its own steam”.

In this brief review I have focused on the bare bones of Joel
Mokyr’s model of cultural evolution. Readers interested in a broader
perspective, should read Deidre McCloskey’s review. McCloskey’s important
trilogy of books in this field also emphasise the importance of rhetorical
contributions in promoting a culture of growth, but seem to imply that literature’s
role in changing attitudes toward business made a greater contribution than Bacon’s
cultural entrepreneurship in the field of science. I mention this just to acknowledge that
history can be complicated.

I find it difficult to read a book like A Culture of Growth without wondering what the implications it
might have for the future. My reading of the history of the industrial
enlightenment (sometimes still referred to as the industrial revolution) has previously made me think about the links between cultural change and economic
policy reform. One might think that if a cultural evolutionary framework can
help us to think about the past it should also be able to help us to think
about the future. However, such models can only provide a framework. As Joel
Mokyr emphasises models of cultural evolution are contingent rather than
deterministic:

“In other words, they force us to recognize that things
could have turned out differently than they did with fairly minor changes in
initial conditions or accidents along the way” (p 232).

Hopefully, the “accidents” that the world is currently
experiencing will not destroy the culture of growth.

No comments:

Emancipation

Welcome!

Welcome to Freedom and Flourishing. While you are here, why not take a look around and leave some comments.

There is a list of my most popular posts below. I am pleased that a post about characteristics of a good society, that I wrote in 2009, is still one of the most popular. That post captures some of the ideas about freedom and individual human flourishing that I think are most important.